How would you have dealt with this? (airprox)

[cjm_2010]

I'm a low hours student building up hours studying for an NPPL(M) and splitting my time between Membury & Swansea.

Today at Membury I was having a good day & my instructor saw fit to send me solo for a few circuits.

We were using runway 13 (a huge grass strip) and everything was going smoothly, until I turned to finals for the first time.

The circuit height is 800ft, and I carried out my usual lookout before turning towards the runway, when something caught my eye, and I had to do a double take. Another aircraft (a PA-28 possibly) was flying slightly above circuit height, right down the middle of the strip, the wrong way, directly towards me.

I'd already started to descend during the turn luckily; because of the closing speed, they were over and past me long before I'd gathered enough calm to think of noting their tail number, if it had even been possible to do so. Unfortunately I didn't have my go-pro with me. I estimate that there was less than 50 ft separation vertically at the closest point. My instructor saw it from the hangar. I instinctively went nose-down & managed to get it down without any further drama.

At the time I shrugged it off & carried on to complete 3 more circuits before taxying to park. It was only on the drive home that it occurred to me just how close I'd come to doom.

Does this happen a lot? It was at about 1300 BST. Nothing was heard on the traffic frequency & the other plane obviously carried on oblivious.

[Beethoven]

Did you discuss it with your instructor afterwards?

[cjm_2010]

We did chat about it briefly (he was performing some maintenance work on one of the school planes & chatting with another student) and I think the consensus was to chalk it up to experience. It certainly taught me to a) sharpen up my lookout & b) expect the unexpected.

[chevvron]

As far as I'm aware, Membury doesn't have an ATZ and is marked on most charts as disused.

Unfortunately.

[alex90]

Oh dear.... I think it's time someone submits the error in the airfield being disused on charts? They may put up a notam re:activities at your aerodrome which could prevent such an encounter.

If the plane didn't even know the field was active, then I guess there is no reason for them to even consider traffic following the circuit (even if s/he saw you which from what you're saying s/he probably didn't). But again he shouldn't have been overtaking that close to you.

Glad you lived to tell the tale! I bet you won't ever be in that situation ever again!

[Mach Jump]

I bet you won't ever be in that situation ever again!

I bet you will!

I'm afraid that this is a constant hazard at airfields without ATZs, and it won't be the last time you encounter this problem.

Isn't it about time the CAA stopped whinging on about how difficult it would be to monitor the management of an ATZ without an Airfield Licence, and agreed, to approve ATZs on the basis of the level of ACTIVITY at an airfield, rather than it's licensing status?:ugh:


MJ:ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

I had a similar experience not long ago, whilst instructing, inside an ATZ. It doesn't provide that much protection.

(Okay, I saw it coming and was happy we wouldn't hit it, so left the incident as a lesson to the student. I'm evil like that - but separation was only about 150ft.)

Lookout, lookout, lookout. Even in the circuit. Even in an ATZ.

G

[chevvron]

Dunsfold is also unlicensed with A/G only and no ATZ but for the short period I worked there, I got a NOTAM out to say it was active and could people make a radio call. This has been carried on by the present A/G operator.

[cjm_2010]

I bet you will!

You'd win that bet. 4 weeks before yesterdays' incident both myself and my instructor were flabbergasted when an N registered posh looking twin touched down on the only (very narrow) tarmac runway at the airfield with no radio announcement on the traffic frequency.

They (4 POB) backtracked on the same runway and sat facing us for about a minute before taking off again.

There was an inversion in the area yesterday which makes me think that the 'naughty' plane was possibly using the M4 as a terrain feature. If so, that's even worse, as I thought you had to keep terrain features to your left?

[xrayalpha]

I would make an Airprox report: indeed, did so three times in a year, if I remember right, here at Strathaven.

Local ATC units will then be able to ID the aircraft and you can then have a quiet word with the pilot. He may have had such fun he feels like trying it again, so important to spread the word. There is no "fine"or shame here.

Of course, the issue with an airfield is conspicuity. If marked on the chart as disused, then that is something to be changed. No need for the Airprox board to come up with that recommendation!

The microlight school may want to send out leaflets to local airfields? We have done that at Strathaven when we went from being an almost abandoned airfield to home to 32 aircraft.

ATZ: you can have one with an A/G service if you are licenced. Or you can become a FISO and run it unlicenced. Neither radio operators can tell anyone what to do once they enter a runway or are in the air.

So why this distinction? There is a lot to be done in Red Tape challenges!

[Prop swinger]

Membury is marked as an airfield on the charts, not as a disused airfield. It's a very quiet airfield, I don't think I have ever seen anything take off or land there. The whole point of an ATZ is that you need permission to enter it & since Membury doesn't have enough traffic to justify having someone sit by a radio all day it will effectively be a Prohibited area for most of the time.

Do we really want small, unmanned airfields getting ATZs? Where will it end? Brimpton, Clench Common, Manton, Firs Farm, Rivar Hill, Hampstead Norris? They are just the ones marked on the charts, there are plenty more unmarked airfields in that area. Talk about complicated airspace . . .

cjm_2010, sympathies for an unpleasant experience. I would also report it as an airprox, they may be able to trace the aircraft through radar recordings. The pilot must have come pretty close to the mast.

[chevvron]

Membury is marked as an airfield on the charts, not as a disused airfield. It's a very quiet airfield, I don't think I have ever seen anything take off or land there. The whole point of an ATZ is that you need permission to enter it & since Membury doesn't have enough traffic to justify having someone sit by a radio all day it will effectively be a Prohibited area for most of the time.

Do we really want small, unmanned airfields getting ATZs? Where will it end? Brimpton, Clench Common, Manton, Firs Farm, Rivar Hill, Hampstead Norris? They are just the ones marked on the charts, there are plenty more unmarked airfields in that area. Talk about complicated airspace . . .

cjm_2010, sympathies for an unpleasant experience. I would also report it as an airprox, they may be able to trace the aircraft through radar recordings. The pilot must have come pretty close to the mast.
Even though those small airfields you mention don't qualify for an ATZ, if you tell AIDU at Northolt, they will include them in their Low Flying document which tells military pilots to avoid them by 2nm radius. I think most are probably notified in it already.

[worrab]

I thought you had to keep terrain features to your left?

Not any more (recent SERA change).

[Moli]

Chev

Just looked in the Mil Low Flying Handbook online and light aircraft landing sites do not get annotated with a 2nm/2000 feet avoid, only gliding sites.
I don't think the OP or subsequent posts refer to any Mil flying anyway, the ac in question was a PA28.

Moli

[MrAverage]

Line feature rule has changed, you can now fly either side or even along....

[FullWings]

I would make an Airprox report
Please do. It’s only through reports that a truer picture emerges of near misses and where to concentrate efforts to avoid them in the future.

From the UKAB website:
The sole objective of the UK Airprox Board is to assess reported Airprox in the interests of enhancing air safety. It is not the purpose of the Board to apportion blame or liability.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Line feature rule has changed, you can now fly either side or even along....
So what's the justification for this change? Was it decided that the rule did not in fact reduce collision risk in real life as measured by some research (link?), or what?

[Mach Jump]

Even though those small airfields you mention don't qualify for an ATZ, if you tell AIDU at Northolt, they will include them in their Low Flying document which tells military pilots to avoid them by 2nm radius. I think most are probably notified in it already.


Sad to say that after a string of unannounced low level overflights by fast jets, helicopters, and transports, they flatly refused to add a very busy unlicensed airfield of my acquaintance to either the Minor Airfields booklet, or any form of 'avoidance list'

When I contacted one helicopter pilot his attitude was, you don't have an ATZ, so we don't give a monkey's. :*

So what's the justification for this change?

I think it's a belated recognition of reality.

In the age of GPS, few people navigate by following roads or railways.

Any aircraft you encounter flying along a line feature, will be unlikely to be 'following' it, rather it just happens to be there and they are just as likely to be on the left, on the right, or directly above it.

If, however, you are actually following a line feature, there is no harm in following the convention of keeping it on your left, just in case there is someone doing the same in the other direction!


MJ:ok:

[Gertrude the Wombat]

In the age of GPS, few people navigate by following roads or railways.
Coast lines?

I interpret "line feature" to include the line joining two VORs (whatever the rules used to say), and when convenient will use the GPS to fly offset from this line, which I still think is better than flying straight down the line itself.

[Thud105]

I wasn't even aware that the term 'Line Feature' was open to interpretation. I've always thought that a 'line feature' was simply a feature on a topographical map or chart that had length but not area, such as the coast, a canal, railway, M-way etc etc.

The real reason why so many aircraft overfly busy but unlicensed airfields is that many GPS databases only include airfields with an ICAO identifier.